Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Well, its dinner time, so I'll find stuff later on, and post it. Sorry I'm making you wait, but this is the first food I've had all day.
Giansar -- Hey Whirlwind - and would you mind telling us what country you come from? I don't think you have this set in your profile and I am curious.Thank you!
I’ll gladly tell you--I come from the finest country on the planet: Canada, my birthplace. I'm educated as a librarian and as a nurse. I'm a white, anglo-saxon, of English, Scottish and French descent.
To Old B. --
A. No, I’m not a troll. And you needn’t have explained the Nordic myth bit. If the sarcasm offends some, my apologies. I’ll try to put a damper on it, but listen, we women have lived our entire lives reading newspaper articles about the rape, murder, maiming, burning, disfiguring, and beating of women every day. Every day another woman found dead by her husband’s or her lover’s hands. Poverty, discrimination, sexism, joblessness…I could go on, but you all get my point. What is at the root of all this violence, and these attitudes towards women, that men are entitled to commit these acts against the women in their lives? And the laws are never strict enough, the boys are not being taught from an early age to never be that way. I firmly believe that religion is responsible for it all, and I am pretty sure it’s true. If something is actually sanctioned by “god”, it gives permission to men to carry it out, does it not? Not all men do these things, but I feel I have to say it because I know someone’s going to point that out to me as if I didn’t already know. But it is men who commit most of the violence in this world, that’s a known fact.
B. Instituting a law that makes domestic violence illegal is not the “equality” or “progress” that women seek. That law should already have been in place--forever. I can’t praise a country that is so far behind, but at least they are trying to improve, so for that I am glad for the women there. I have never been a radical feminist, really I’m just an observer. I’ve never paraded, joined a rally, burned a bra, or been part of a protest. But I’ve spent my adult life reading a heck of a lot. The more I know, the more I recognize that religion truly is at the head of it all, and I know it. I recently had a conversation with a Psychology professor acquaintance of mine, who has published over 51 books and papers, and is currently working on a new project with his assistant, Trudy. He is in complete agreement that religion has poisoned many things but mostly medicine, law, family, and education. AND it is to blame for religion’s negative teachings towards women most of all, but of course, many other things as well.
C. It’s not for me that I want to see more equality in this world. I have a good career, a fine education, I’ve always had freedom of choice, I was born in a nice city in a great country, and I have a pretty nice lifestyle. It’s the traditions, beliefs, customs and practices that get my goat. And yes, male domination angers me to no end! How could it not?! Just as any kind of domination would anger any thinking person. I know how Black people feel, I really do. I loathe the ho-hum, passive reactions that I see every day. Someone once said to me: “Well, that’s the nature of the beast, isn’t it?” NO! It’s not nature, it’s nurture, we’ve been taught this is the way it is, but it could change.
D. “Would it be better if women were still abused?” I can’t believe that I’m actually reading this! Women ARE still abused. Every day. In every city of every country. Where have you been? That’s the kind of thinking that astonishes me.
E. Yes, in a way it is a race though not in any official way. We do need to make change in laws world-wide and quickly, too. Women are suffering everywhere. Think about this: If it were any other group say, Black males, Eskimo children, Japanese boys, Mexican teen boys—we would very quickly sit up and take notice. However, the victims are women and even though it’s widespread, worldwide violence, exploitation, discrimination, brutality and hatred we turn our faces away and say, “That’s just the way it is.” To me, that’s the biggest lie that could ever be told. And I think that religion is at the root of this kind of thing because they sit back and do absolutely nothing, too. And if they are so compassionate and bring so much good to this world, then here is one problem that I challenge them to begin to put right. But their prejudices against Womankind continue, and another thing, as long as there's an angry, jealous, punishing, male god in their fantasies, religion to me is contemptible and insupportable.
Shannon, heres one:http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2...
I'm still trying to remember where the prison study one I've seen. Will get it eventually. Whatever I find, I'll post, but its DVD night tonight, so probably not till tomorrow.
Whirlwind wrote: "By all means, I’ll proudly tell everyone--I come from the best country in the world: Canada, my birthplace. "Never had an opportunity to visit but from I heard from people who've been there it is an extremely nice place to live (maybe could be a little warmer).
One thing though. You are willing to lash out at China for only just recently enforcing laws against beating women and yet your most beloved country still allows beating children by parents and teachers. So, women are equal to men but are more equal than children?
Whirlwind wrote: "D. “Would it be better if women were still abused?” I can’t believe that I’m actually reading this! Women ARE still abused. Every day. In every city of every country. Where have you been? That’s the kind of thinking that astonishes me..."Cool yer jets...
I am obviously aware that abuse still occurs, laws or no laws...and I may have misinterpreted the tone of your post, but after your comment on the law being passed ("Oh, bravo to the macho male brains that did all the dead women such a favor.")
the question was meant to make you think why you felt that way about the law and the means by which it was passed. Would you have been happier if it hadn't been passed?
In a male dominated society they tend to be the lawmakers, so to be sneering about the laws they passed (as it seems from the way you wrote) due to the fact they were men that passed them, even when the laws are in some way beneficial, makes me wonder how else the law could be made in a way that would make you happy with it's genesis.
Whirlwind, otherwise: fair points.
Hazel wrote: "Shannon, heres one:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2...
I'm still trying to remember where the prison study one I've seen. Will get it eventually. Whatever I find, I'll post, but..."
Got the site ... will read it later. Don't worry about when you find the other and enjoy DVD night. :)
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2...
I'm still trying to remember where the prison study one I've seen. Will get it eventually. Whatever I find, I'll post, but..."
Got the site ... will read it later. Don't worry about when you find the other and enjoy DVD night. :)
Giansar wrote: "Whirlwind wrote: "By all means, I’ll proudly tell everyone--I come from the best country in the world: Canada, my birthplace. "Never had an opportunity to visit but from [what] I heard from people who've been there it is an extremely nice place to live (maybe could be a little warmer).
One thing though. You are willing to lash out at China for only just recently enforcing laws against beating women and yet your most beloved country still allows beating children by parents and teachers. So, women are equal to men but are more equal than children? "
If you look back at my wording, I don't think you'll find that I "lashed out" about China. Here are my exact words: Instituting a law that makes domestic violence illegal is not the “equality” or “progress” that women seek. That law should already have been in place--forever. I can’t praise a country that is so far behind, but at least they are trying to improve, so for that I am glad for the women there.
Now, I don't see what is so harsh and lashing about that. It's pretty diplomatic in my opinion.
Parts of Canada are south of, parallel to, and some are more northerly to the U.S., but their country expands down towards the south, so part of it gets warmer or hotter weather. But Canada has hot, beautiful weather half of the year, NOT 2 months as the Americans like to say, citing July and August it seems, as our only summer months. Such bunk.
And then, what is this about, may I ask: "...yet your most beloved country still allows beating children by parents and teachers. So, women are equal to men but are more equal than children?"
Giansar, where did you get that information??
Corporal punishment in schools is illegal in Canada. When I went to school as a child, in all 8 years that I spent in elementary school, only one kid--a boy--got "the strap", which was a strapping across the palm of the hand by the teacher, in private, in the principal's office. Nowadays, they no longer do that, and any kind of physical abuse against children is widely condemned. I don't know where you got your information, but I live here and I know the culture in the schools.
Nor is beating by parents condoned, it is condemned. The vast majority of parents these days no longer believe in spanking their children, they prefer gentler and more persuasive "time out" or a good talking-to instead of hitting. As a child I think I was spanked once, but I hardly remember it and it sure didn't do me any harm, then or afterwards. No, Canada does not allow this; of course it is done by some people but those who are found abusing their children are arrested and tried for child abuse. It is an abhorrent thing in Canadian's eyes.
I think you have been misled or you're reading the wrong information. Yes there are some people who do hideous things, there always will be those who break the law and there will always be terrible parents and violent people. But does Canada support and agree with that behaviour? Absolutely not. Ever.
Back to the point of all this: theological doctrine (religion) allows violence against children. "Spare the rod and spoil the child", and they thought that beating a kid would literally expel, or beat the devil (satan) out of them.
The idea of wife abuse is anathema to most Canadians. It is done by some sick men but this is definitely not at crime that is easily swept under the carpet by the vast majority. It is viewed with disgust, horror and condemnation.
But do those guys still think they have some right to beat on their wives or girlfriends? Yep, they do. What's at the root of this? Again, it stems from ancient theological teachings that have poisoned the mind for 2,000 years: that "man is superior to woman" and that he is the authority figure in the home. Bunk again! Given some of the men I see in the supermarkets and on city streets, I'd be hard pressed to find one that is superior to any woman I know. :D
Hands down, I'd rather live in a world without religion. Religion is the root of all evil.
Whirlwind wrote: "If you look back at my wording, I don't think you'll find that I "lashed out" about China. Here are my exact words: Instituting a law that makes domestic violence illegal is not the “equality” or “progress” that women seek. That law should already have been in place--forever. I can’t praise a country that is so far behind, but at least they are trying to improve, so for that I am glad for the women there."Oh, I am not talking about this.
I am talking about that:
Whirlwind wrote: "Domestic violence in Xdyj's home country is illegal. That's just too damn exciting. (Sarcasm intended.)
Would you care to name that country for us? Just so that I make sure never to go there since it took them until the 1990's to make beating, maiming, or killing a woman a crime.
Oh, bravo to the macho male brains that did all the dead women such a favor.
Xdyj, you seem such a sweet person by your comments, but I sure hope you don't live there any more, and it sounds like you don't. Maybe a good thing you got out?
"
If it is not you lashing out, I am sure I never want to see you lashing out!
Whirlwind wrote: "Giansar, where did you get that information??
Corporal punishment in schools is illegal in Canada."
Criminal Code of Canada.
Section 43.
"CORRECTION OF CHILD BY FORCE.
43. Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances."
The criminal code has been in need of revision for a long time, and I don't know when that was originally written. I'm sure you realize that what is stated in law is often not what is truly practiced by the people of the nation. It may be in the code, but it's not often applied, I can promise you that. Example: It's illegal in many places to jay-walk (crossing the street where you shouldn't), but it's not enforced and people do it all the time. The fact that it's in the code doesn't give permission to do a thing, it provides a defense if it goes to court. If a school teacher in this country laid a hand on a child it would end up in the papers and people everywhere would be speaking out against it. It's not tolerated here. I can't get into a discussion about the law with you because that is not my profession or my biggest interest, but I'll tell you that child abuse is not tolerated by the vast majority here and what parents do to their children behind closed doors is hard to know. Unless there are signs of something wrong, no one can help the poor kid. When parents are caught however, they are dealt with. You know, the average person doesn't keep a copy of the criminal code in their desk drawer to refer to when and if they want to punish their kids. That kind of thing is really up to the parents and hopefully they have the kind of moral and ethical code, and psychological control, to prevent themselves from doing harm. Now religion? That's another story!
The only reason I brought it up is because of your criticism of Xdyj's country. I am aware that apart from the law there are social, cultural and historical implications, which we may not be aware with regard to many different countries or regions in the world. We therefore should be very careful about criticism.I am sure Canada is a very modern, developed, civilized and humane country and I am not going to think any less about it only because it allows corporal punishment in the code.
In Poland corporal punishment in schools and at homes were forbidden only very recently - in 2001 and 2010 respectively.
And do you know that for example Switzerland - a country that otherwise has been very developed and civilized for a long time and I don;t think anyone can argue that - only granted women the right to vote in 1971! I admit, when I first heard about it long ago I was stunned. Can you imagine? In the sixties, in the middle of industrialized Europe, women couldn't vote! There's discrimination for you. Not some petty "they expect me to give up my name" stuff.
The debate about name-change at marriage isn't a petty one, Giansar. Simply talk to a few people in North America for example. It's still widely practiced but I think that is because not enough women give it a thought, nor do they understand the implications of doing so. For more open-minded, liberal-thinking couples the answer is simple: they accept the plan for the woman to keep her already established surname; it's a non-issue. But for a lot of men, it's a blow to his ego if she doesn't adopt his name--some jerks even go so far as to threaten not to marry her! He deserves to be dumped for that, but most women wouldn't do it, because they are too afraid of not finding another mate. One guy said, "If she loves me, she'll take my name. If she won't then I won't marry her." Now, THAT'S petty! It's also intimidation. I think there are a lot of men who do the same and what does this tell us? That the bullying is starting before they even get married if he feels that way. Extort her cooperation with threats...nice. That thinking stems right from the patriarchal religion that holds with the lunacy that male is somehow (how, exactly?) superior to female, a lie that is believed almost everywhere. One doesn't even have to be religious any more to believe this is the way things are, so deeply entrenched in our thoughts and culture is the patriarchal fantasy of male superiority. It is so toxic, so poisonous, so dangerous. It's NOT a "petty" issue if you dig deeper into it; it's just another way of attempting to reduce the status of women and remove her very name, her identity. Now they are ONE--him. Now, she's "Mrs. His-Name". On another comment you made, I did not criticize Xdyj's country. Why are you speaking on his behalf, he didn't seem half as offended as you are. What I did criticize was the lawmakers' slowness in modifying a law, before I knew which country we were talking about. All countries are out there, wide open to everyone in this world, and can be criticized, at least here in Canada, where we do enjoy freedom of speech without someone coming along and trying to make you feel you've done something wrong. It's as if you're telling me how dare I speak truthfully of another country! Please. (I'm sure China will suffer the injury just fine. Um, that's a joke.)
We haven't even mentioned the "one-child only" rule or female infanticide in China. That's another thing that you can call me up on, I don't mind, but how dare I mention it? Wasn't I supposed to keep my mouth shut about things that we should ignore and not protest or criticize?
Female Infanticide--focus, India and China:
"It remains a critical concern in a number of "Third World" countries today, notably the two most populous countries on earth, China and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that pervades "patriarchal" societies. It is closely linked to the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl children."
http://www.gendercide.org/case_infant...
Come to think of it, this is a stellar example of the abhorrent and disgusting, criminal use of science for the sake of destroying lives, female lives. Who's putting these policies/practices/notions in place? Women? Or, men. Unspeakable what patriarchal culture has done.
If my audacity offends you, go to the source of the problem, but don't shoot the messenger.
Shannon wrote: "Well, now .... To use the above as proof of anything, wouldn't we need more facts ... a lot more. For example, in which countries are prisons filled with more believers than non-believers. And ... what is the population of believers and non-believers in that country, in general? If there are far more believers than non-believers, wouldn't it follow that ... based on population alone ... the maths ... that more prisoners would be believers. I don't think that fact alone proves that believers are more prone to criminal acts. No."Hi Shannon,
I accept what you say is reasonable, at least the first part. The reason I started looking up prison populations (quite a few years ago now) was because I was tired of hearing religious people state over and over again that religious people are more moral than non-believers.
So, let us imagine that non-believers are just as likely to be good or bad than believers, wouldn't the prison population be "higher than 1% for atheists" if this were the case? Atheists are more than 1% of the general population, at least here in the UK, and even in the USA. I've yet to see any statistics where atheists are even more than 1% of the prison population. And this is taking into account what you said about the percentage of religious people are the majority in most countries such as USA and the UK.
Roxy wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Well, now .... To use the above as proof of anything, wouldn't we need more facts ... a lot more. For example, in which countries are prisons filled with more believers than non-bel..."Yup basically, if the population was a 80/20 split theist/atheist, then if both are just as likely to offend, then the split within prisons should be the same 80/20 split, but it isn't. IN fact its massively different, with theists taking up far more of the population in prisons than you'd expect if everyone was as likely to offend.
Whirlwind wrote: "The debate about name-change at marriage isn't a petty one, Giansar. "Yes, it is.
Of course there are a lot of men that are sexiest enough to treat as a personal insult the fact that a woman won't take their surname. But their existence has nothing to do with the tradition itself. You can just as well say that the custom of letting women first through the door is sexiest because it's condescending. The problem is in your head.
If you happen to be with a guy that would threaten you with breaking engagement because you didn't want to take his surname - just thank God you found out his a total jerk before you actually married him.
LOL @ Giansar. Just so typical of a man who cannot put forth a better argument--start making an attempt to insult the other party by saying "the problem is in your head". Petty. And I'm not insulted by you, it takes a lot more than that to get under my skin, kiddo.It seems to me that this topic strikes a rather sensitive chord within you, G. I wonder why.
The debate over name change upon marriage has taken place for as long as the institution of marriage has existed, and that's no "petty" thing, nor does it make it an issue that's "all in someone's head". LMAO
http://womensissues.about.com/od/femi...
This discussion was going on long before the 1940's and is no petty thing, so why would you think so?
Here's what one intelligent woman had to say on a discussion group:
"I can't believe that nearly all the posts on here advocate women changing their names as a sign of respect and devotion to their husbands, and that there's something oddball about women who don't. The woman who is all for women's rights but also tradition - what is women's rights about if not something as fundamental as retaining your own identity?? I'm keeping my name, because I see no good reason to take my husband's name, and that certainly doesn't mean I love or respect him any less. Also - so magnanimous of the guy to demonstrate to his wife that's she's equal to him. If he really thought that, he wouldn't have to think about it. You people are bizarre."
Whirlwind wrote: "LOL @ Giansar. Just so typical of a man who cannot put forth a better argument--start making an attempt to insult the other party by saying "the problem is in your head"I meant no offense by this. It was just a statement of opinion.
If I started to go around talking about how discriminated I feel because yesterday I was at a restaurant with my wife and the waiter stubbornly kept serving her first obviously regarding her as someone better more important and more deserving than me, what would you say? Wouldn't you say that the problem is in my head?
Giansar, that's not a good example, you're taking an unlikely, imaginary scenario and trying to compare that with a real and tangible issue that exists in society. And no, I wouldn't be so rude as to tell you that any problem you have, or think you have, is all in your head. If you have a problem, I'd respect you enough to hear you voice it without being so dismissive.
Listen, the marriage-name-change thing is an interesting social issue that can present somewhat of a dilemma to a couple for many reasons, and it certainly merits thought and discussion. Are you always so dismissive whenever a topic is one that rubs you the wrong way? This one, for some reason seems to make you want to deny the negative side of it. I still keep wondering why you respond that way.
Actually, its generally a given in a restaurant that the waiter serve the woman first (though its usually the man who gets to taste the wine and approve it, though when we go on rare trips to restaurants and if there is wine, both me and my partner insist on approving it before agreeing to it... though we tend to go for cola, or water...). "Ladies first" and all that. And then theres when a disaster happens, like a ship sinking, in which its women and children first, leaving the men to die if theres no room on a lifeboat (or alternative form of escape if its a different sort of disaster). Now if someone made a claim like Giansar suggested, in which they claim that the waiter serving the woman first was doing so "stubbornly" and that said waiter considered the woman as "more important or deserving", then I'd say they were being paranoid, and that the waiter was simply observing the "correct" ettiquette for the situation as they'd been taught by the maitre d' (or whoever trains the waiters). WHich I think is what he's getting at. IE the insult that you see is not intended, and its your perception of it that makes it offensive. Offense, often, is in the eye of the beholder, not in the intent of the beheld.
Yes Hazel! Thank you!I think my difficulty in explaining my points here is not only due to the language barrier but also to the gender barrier. I think average man's brain is generally to simplistic for any woman's chain of thought- I'm often hitting a wall even when trying to understand my own wife - and I think I know her relatively well.
If you don't know it, I strongly recommend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ9L9Y...
I watched it with my wife and we both nodded all the way through.
Giansar wrote: "Yes Hazel! Thank you!I think my difficulty in explaining my points here is not only due to the language barrier but also to the gender barrier. I think average man's brain is generally to simplist..."
I'm male and I'm uncomfortable with patrilinear naming scheme (in fact, it is said that the "female infanticide" Whirlwind mentioned might has something to do with that) though I fully respect other people's decisions on their own names.
*THIS IS VERY DISTURBING, BUT IT IS REALITY. IT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE DAY. IS THIS WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE HAPPEN TO YOUR LITTLE GIRL IF SHE WASN'T LUCKY ENOUGH TO LIVE IN A FREE SOCIETY? THIS IS WHAT PATRIARCHAL CULTURES ARE CONTINUING TO DO TO THE FEMININE. FGM, FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION DESTROYS A WOMAN'S ABILITY TO ENJOY SEXUAL PLEASURE, AND THAT IS ITS SOLE PURPOSE. I'M SURE NO WOMAN IN HER RIGHT MIND DREAMED UP THIS BRUTALITY, ONLY A MAN WOULD THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE IT ROBS HER OF AN IMPORTANT PART OF HER WOMANHOOD, WHILE IT IGNORES THE DANGERS THAT IT BRINGS. AGAIN, IT'S JUST ANOTHER WAY OF DESTROYING THE LIVES OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN.I put this in caps to draw attention to it, not because I intended to "yell".
This video is almost impossible to watch. It's gut-wrenching and horribly sad. You will want to cry and scream. Yet, this is what is happening to little tiny girls and young women in many countries. Why? Because it is a patriarchy, a system that denies the rights of women so completely in some cases, that it denies her of the most natural of all things: sexual gratification and pleasure. They tear off the clitoris, remove the labia, and leave the vaginal opening vulnerable to infection for the rest of her life. Childbirth is exceedingly painful, sex is painful, and the genitals look hideous, I know, as a Nurse, I have seen the result of this hacking. This is utterly abhorrent and disgusting, but it's done because they have been brainwashed (cultural conditioning)into thinking that a woman should not have sexual desire, plus they think it helps to prevent her from having sex outside of marriage. So, the female becomes the victim once again, of this kind of torture and it's her body that they mutilate.
http://youtu.be/UbwzbzxshWc
Mohammed is recorded as speaking of the Sunna circumcision to Ansar's wives saying: "Cutting slightly with out exaggeration, because it is more pleasant for your husbands." quote from the internet, http://wolvesdreams.tripod.com/FGM.html
Again, a world without religion? I say get rid of them all.
that was somewhat tangental (or at least, only tenously linked) to the ongoing conversation there, Whirlwind... Yes, female circumcision is wrong (I think male circumcision is wrong too), but why did you put it here instead of making a thread just for it? I think it would make an interesting conversation thread in and off itself.
I realise this may be a delicate question, but as it's a subject I know little about I feel I have to ask: Who carries out the mutilation?I agree it is barbaric and wrong.
Some people talk of cultural equality, every culture being equaly valid, every culture having a right to carry out it's own rituals etc...I think this proves how blinkered they are.
I also think male circumcision is barbaric and wrong...but I realise this is not currently being discussed.
If ritual mutilation is done on a consenting adult who am I to argue...but when done without consent and under force/duress it is a blatant case of assault.
The patriarchal naming scheme as some call it has a few reasons for its existence. Some think it is tradition. Some think that it is a way of identifying the whole family under one name. Yeah, there's that, I grant you. Some think it's a 'nice tradition'. Ok, tradition can be nice. Others say that it's nice to honour the man this way. Well, I'm not so sure that he needs that, but ok. It's actually quite simple--it originated because it was the only way that a man could claim parenthood of the offspring. Biologically, the mother's identity is always certain, there is absolutely no doubt about who gave birth to the child or children. (Of course there are cases of abandonment, but that's not what we're talking about here so please don't bother to bring it to my attention.)
Mother is there at the birth and there's no denying who Mommy is.
But as for Daddy? No one really knows for sure. These days we now have tests, so we're good to go on that issue. However before we had that technology (science again), there was no way of knowing. Sooo...because of the tender and easily damaged male ego, he had to have a way of claiming those kiddies as his own, because the whole village knew who gave birth to the kids. But you know, that one little red-headed boy might just belong to the sheep herder up the valley. So Daddy got a bright idea: the woman and children would take his name and that would erase any doubt about Whose Your Daddy! That's really the only way that he could announce to society that he was the father, by labeling, with his name.
A patriarchal solution to a dilemma that caused no small amount of anxiety to the man, no doubt. The problem with this system is that it is next to impossible to trace the matrilineal line, and so the result is that women disappear into oblivion, and as the bible would have it, that's just fine, since it is well known that men begat men--Cush's sons were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabteca, and the sons of so and so were...get the point?
See, these men lived ALL alone and there were NO women around, 'cause they didn't need them, 'cause Adam after all, was able to give birth to Eve with a rib. I'm sure you're all familiar with this little bit of bullshit. Yep, and if you believe that, you're either crazy or stupid.
So much for stupidity. Can anyone else see through it?
Can I ask where you're getting all this info from? I'm not saying I doubt its veracity, I just wondered if you have any citations? Especially as biologically, baby usually looks like daddy early on in the vast majority of cases (there have been studies, I've asked for citations, so if you want me to find them, I'll do my best) thus making daddy hang around to care for baby.
Hazel wrote: "that was somewhat tangental (or at least, only tenously linked) to the ongoing conversation there, Whirlwind... Yes, female circumcision is wrong (I think male circumcision is wrong too), but why d..."And that is all you have to say. No comment about the agony of the child or the damage that has been done to her. How interesting and revealing that you would be more concerned with saying I should have put it on another thread, than to turn your attentions to what really matters.
Wow.
Whirlwind wrote: "Hazel wrote: "that was somewhat tangental (or at least, only tenously linked) to the ongoing conversation there, Whirlwind... Yes, female circumcision is wrong (I think male circumcision is wrong t..."what do you want? Tearing out of hair? Crying? Weeping? I'm aware that it happens, I've seen it done on TV on a documentary, it wasn't pleasant. I just didn't understand why you put it smack bang in the middle of another conversation. If its so disgusting (I agree, it is) surely it deserves its own thread where it can be discussed without being interupted by people claiming that they chose religion over science, thus meaning you can focus entirely on what you want to get across. And really, do you just want me to parrot what you've already said, because you pretty much covered the disgust I feel.
And considering you felt my placing pictures of deformed children was going too far in this conversation, do you not feel placing that video was a little hypocritical of you? I don't mind it, it makes a very powerful point, but it is somewhat hypocritical of you after you had a go at me for far less harrowing imagery.
Surnames in the West are fairly recent in Hx terms, apart from amongst the aristos. There was little need apart from when issues of property and rights of kingship etc needed to be kept track of.I speak here for mainly Scots/Irish areas, but similar conditions existed in other areas.
In the more tribal areas a clan name was used with the chief in many cases being known only by the clan name. The possesion on the surname/christian name marked you as being one of their people and as a result under their protection...important in mainly lawless times where might made right. Therefore by joining with another clan and taking their name you came under this protection. For instance: any action against an Armstrong was an action against all Armstrongs...safety in numbers.
In more settled areas as surnames became common they came in many cases coming from a trade or location or overlord or distinguishing feature. They varied in spelling (when written) and only took solid form once enshrined in church records...and that was fairly late as the very idea and practice of formal weddings (as opposed to things like jumping the broom), for folk that weren't gentry, is only a couple of hundred years old.
There is still the ancient practice of being married in "common law" in Scotland where for legal reasons you ar considered married but have had no formal ceremony. You keep your own name and any children have whatever name is put on the birth cert. in many cases the mother's.
As to the issue of paternity, the name is in no way a guarantee of fidelity or a proof against rape.
As to other cultures I cannot comment.
Hazel wrote: "what do you want? Tearing out of hair? Crying? Weeping?"MAYBE IF YOU'D REPLIED IN CAPITAL LETTERS!
Hazel wrote: "Can I ask where you're getting all this info from? I'm not saying I doubt its veracity, I just wondered if you have any citations? Especially as biologically, baby usually looks like daddy early on..."Hazel, it comes from many years of studying, doing my own research, reading all kinds of books on many various topics and having worked in an academic (university) library for years, having had at my disposal all sorts of books on hundreds of related topics. I haven't kept a bibliography except for the essays I wrote in Sociology, English, French, History, Anthropology, Psychology, and so on. What taught me the most was the literature on religious history, and of course, Women's Studies. I delved into Women and Religion, Women's Spirituality, some Joseph Campbell, .... I'm at work right now so I don't have the list with me, which come to think of it, is on the hard drive of my home comp. I'll dig up some titles for you if you're interested, but the list is long.
Here are only a few: Margaret Starbird , Rianne Eisler (The Chalice and the Blade), Elaine Pagels, Rosalind Miles, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Rena Pederson, Laurence Gardner, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, John Shelby Spong...
Well, I can find any number of books that contradict each other, so if you could throw a few names of books, studies etc my way, it means I can actually know which ones are worth looking at. I'd really appreciate it.
As I said I haven't kept a bibliography (only in part) but I have a list of books I've read or intend to read at home. I did give you names of some authors, that's the best I can do at the moment as I said, I'm at work until later this evening. Glad to send you lots. Not all the books I've read come from the same point of view, the only way you can find what you're looking for is to examine as many sides as you have time for, and access as many sources as possible. Since I'm not a professor, I can't get at the books I'd really love to, but that still leaves millions to be had. If only life were long enough.
Hazel wrote: "Whirlwind wrote: "Hazel wrote: "that was somewhat tangental (or at least, only tenously linked) to the ongoing conversation there, Whirlwind... Yes, female circumcision is wrong (I think male circu..."Alright, but the babies you showed were born that way, some kind of congenital defects if I recall correctly, which they could not help however, the little child in the video was clearly a victim of assault by deliberate, barbarous, savage mutilation. It has to be known in the First World or else we cannot help those women and children. Part of helping them is to talk about it and make people aware that it's going on.
Also, since part of the reason for this practice has religion at its root cause, we need to educate people that maybe this isn't really what their 'god' intended for them do do after all. Maybe they've got their religious notions all buggered up? Just a thought...
Hitchens says religion poisons everything. Amen to that.
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "I realise this may be a delicate question, but as it's a subject I know little about I feel I have to ask: Who carries out the mutilation?I agree it is barbaric and wrong.
Some people talk of ..."
I think in most cases FGM is performed in the family home by the girl's mother, aunts, grandmother, all of whom I'm guessing lack any sort of medical education.
Whirlwind do you have any idea's on the soloution to the patrilineal names. Anything come up in the books?
Shanna wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: " Old-Barbarossa wrote: "I realise this may be a delicate question, but as it's a subject I know little about I feel I have to ask: Who carries out the mutilation?I agree it is barbaric and wrong.
Some people talk of ..."
I think in most cases FGM is performed in the family home by the girl's mother, aunts, grandmother, all of whom I'm guessing lack any sort of medical education."
You're right. Often times it is performed in a room full of women and men most of whom can be or are, related to the girl. Sometimes there is a clergy person present, altho' what real role they play, I'm not sure. In some cases, the girl is lifted high up in the air by four people, two holding her under the arms, two holding her legs wide open to access her genital area. She is completely naked, as in the video clip. Someone comes into the room with a can of some kind, like an empty coffee tin, which contains shards of glass of various sizes and shapes. The person conducting the mutilation procedure begins to select appropriate pieces of glass for the procedure and they begin to hack away at the genitals while the poor victim writhes and screams in utter agony. Often they faint from the pain. After it's all done the poor child's legs are tied together until the wounds heal; this can be up to 40 days.
This article from Wikipedia (for lack of a better source at the moment), tells more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_g...
Rarely is this ever done in a sterile environment--no wonder, hardly any hospital in the western world would allow it--so it's usually done by unskilled people, with unsterile glass or razors, without anaesthesia.
Such is one aspect of the lives of girls and women in this world.
Shanna wrote: "Whirlwind do you have any idea's on the soloution to the patrilineal names. Anything come up in the books?"Lots of options. Keep your own name. The man can opt to take hers instead. Hyphenate and use both names. Create one new name if you're feeling creative. :-) Or, both can take her name for a change of pace. (I think I already said that, didn't I?)
I'm sure these aren't all the options but those are. the ones that come to me at the moment. Oh, another idea...abolish the patriarchy and let the future take us towards a more egalitarian world view instead of this destructive imbalance.
The clergy person is probably present to confirm that it had been done, naturally a woman's word wouldn't be enough. An independant source at a marriage negoiations to confirm the act had been done
Quite possibly you're right. Good thought.
Whirlwind wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Whirlwind do you have any idea's on the soloution to the patrilineal names. Anything come up in the books?"Lots of options. Keep your own name. The man can opt to take hers ins..."
I can just see the names on third and fourth generation hyphenators.... I do see your point
It would get complicated.
ASHLEY MONTAGU, d.1999 anthropologist & humanistCAROL P. CHRIST, Ph. D [Yale]
ELAINE PAGELS, Ph.D. [Harvard] writer, professor, Biblical scholar
JOSEPH CAMPBELL**, d.1987 mythologist, writer, lecturer
MARGARET STARBIRD*, M.A, teacher, theologian, writer
MARY T. CONDREN,Th.D. [Harvard], lecturer, writer
MARIJA GIMBUTAS*, archeologist & writer
MERLIN STONE, sculptor and professor of art & art history
MONICA SJOO, artist & writer
PETER GANDY, M.A., writer on mysticism, classical civilizations
RIANE EISLER*, eminent social scientist, attorney, author
ROSEMARY R. REUTHER, Ph.D., feminist scholar & theologian
TIMOTHY FREKE, British writer & spiritualist
Lots of options. Keep your own name. The man can opt to take hers ins..."Of course, her 'own name' is her father's name that her mother took. Or her grandmother's name that is her grandfather's name. Name change at marriage is a choice for most woman to do what is most comfortable and convient for her. Granted, not in every country. However, FGM, the right to vote, the right to property and the right to marry who ever you love are legal / society issues that need to be addressed without religion. Is this thread religion vs science or is it religion vs social reform?
It's still about religion vs. science, but if people want to know what's really wrong with religion vs. what's really right with science, they have to look at every single, minute aspect of the harm that religion has done, then people can put forth a good argument. It's not all about the lavish real estate owned by catholics for instance, it's not all about child abuse by clergy, it's not all about dowry burnings, FGM, 9-11, or wars throughout the centuries. It's about the undeserved pillar that religion puts itself on, the hypocrisy, the lies, the false promises, the abuse of trust and its widespread nonsense soaked up by vulnerable minds. It's also about the thousands of years of female subjugation, the Magdalene Asylums, The Inquisition, the Witch-hunts, and on and on and on. There is, nor will there be, an end to their crimes.
Because of religion we are in dire need of social reform. It's like an octopus, creeping into everything. It's influence is so pervasive it will be exceedingly hard to erase all its negativity from the face of the earth.
Cheri wrote: "Lots of options. Keep your own name. The man can opt to take hers ins..."Of course, her 'own name' is her father's name that her mother took. Or her grandmother's name that is her grandfather's..."
That's another argument, of course. The name I have is my father's name, his father's name and all their father's names before them. And if I wanted to take the name of my grandmother, I'd have to go with Smith or Fraser, all the names of still more forefathers.
Whatever happened to my foremothers? Lost.
Women don't exist. Is that maybe why the theme of the 'woman in exile' is so popular in literature? She's been written out. I think it's key to finding the answer.
If I could just nudge things back onto the science vs religion topic...and to play devil's advocate...First, when I'm talking of science I mean that which has occured due to implementation of scientific method and research/study. I won't get zealous and say all tech is science for the sake of this though...slow development of agriculture/slow development of metalworking etc I mean specifically the post medieval uses.
Anyway, science has enabled us to overfarm, overfish, overpopulate, and overpolute the planet. As well as enabling us humans to exploit/be exploited, depending on who has the best tech/weapons.
Without science and scientific method we would be less efficient, there would have been no industrialisation, there would be more "natural wastage" of the human population due to famine and disease. This would have left the human species more in "balance" with the planet. This would mean less climate change (or less rapid anyway), less extinctions, less poisoning of rivers, less deforestation.
Many of the negative effects of the use of science are more to do with trade than bettering our lot on the planet...increased crop yield, faster transport, healthier workforce, the theft of natural resources from the less tech savy.
I'm taking this stance to try and re-balance the argument on the thread. I know religion has been responsible for a lot of fairly nasty stuff, my previous posts should make that fairly evident.
But any anti-science argument has ignored the issues I've mentioned and resorted to the "science is bad and atheists are evil, look at Hitler and the atom bomb" argument (OK, I know I'm over simplifying).
I'm trying to point out that even when we think we're doing good in the short term we may be doing a fair amount of bad in the longer term.
Religion is unlikely to lead to catastrophic climate change, or mass extinctions, or overpopulation to the point resources are used up and humans end up back in the stone age.
As I said, just playing devil's advocate.
Any thoughts?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Pet, I think you're entirely incorrect that we isolate ourselves, in fact the proof for that itself is that I'm ta..."
Hey, Hazel. I've actually never heard of this correlation being made. So, I would truly be interested in reading such studies. And ... they prove that the key is religious belief or the lack of belief ... not other factors? I'd find that fascinating.